GWPP Creates Governance Pressures and Local Dynamics

The political landscape surrounding the Gemini Wind Power Project (GWPP) reflects a mix of local motivations and governance pressures. Local government units are drawn to the promise of employment for constituents, increased local revenues from taxes and fees, and alignment with national directives promoting renewable energy. Yet interviews suggest deeper, unspoken pressures at play—including high-level national mandates, the need to reconcile ENIPAS requirements with the interests of powerful investors, and the limited availability of local scientific expertise to critically assess Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) findings.

These dynamics expose institutional vulnerabilities: questions about how independent the PAMB can be when user fees are attached, how reversible rezoning decisions truly are if negative impacts emerge, and whether communities are given sufficient time, information, and agency to participate meaningfully. Together, these uncertainties fuel public mistrust and skepticism, revealing governance gaps that shape the broader debate over the project.

The law mandates that renewable energy projects are allowed only in specific zones and only after passing strict environmental assessments. Local opposition is formally considered through consultations. If community concerns demonstrate credible ecological risks or uncertainties, the Precautionary Principle requires the PAMB to disallow the project—even if it aligns with national renewable energy goals.

The Calbayog populace stressed its vehement opposition, banning the 13 wind turbine generators in Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape, which was clearly manifested in the signature campaign with strong support from 12 various organizations.

The decision of the city council to withdraw endorsement to the GWPP project prompted the provincial government to initiate a dialogue with Save Calbayog Rivers Foundation, Inc. (SACRIFICE) and the water district in Calbayog City, attended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Samar Chapter, business sector, church, academia and private organizations.

The confluence of political influence, the denial of public hearing, and the unilateral modification of the PAMP suggests a breakdown of the participatory governance model enshrined in the ENIPAS Law. The Act was specifically designed to prevent this kind of “railroading” by decentralizing authority and mandating community involvement to ensure the protected area’s management benefits both the environment and its dependent communities. These actions, if proven, directly negate the principles of transparency and stakeholder inclusion that form the foundation of environmental law in the Philippines.

Fr. Noel Labendia of the Holy Infant Parish expressed concerns about political influence manifesting as alleged railroading and legal violations in the process of ECC and SAPA application, such as the denial of a proper public hearing and the unilateral alteration of the protected area management plan, which he considered a significant violation of the ENIPAS Law of 2018.

“May mga antecedent naman ngay-an. Tuig 2023 – 2024, ginpasa naman ngay-an sa Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Kami nga nag-ooffer san another perspective waray na kami pamatia. Kay may surat nga ginbasa si BM Bermejo tikang kan Governor, nga no possible objection. Naintidihan ko an city council pati an mga barangay, kay nasiring si Governor nga maupay ini”, Labendia disclosed.

Samar Governor Sharee Ann Tan’s primary intent in the dialogue is to compromise on a contentious development issue, while also establishing her personal commitment to Vena Corporation and her difficult position as a leader in the province.

“Fr. Labendia, we know that you are very vocal against me in some ways, but I have to be candid with you, I am not here to be hypocritical. I am here to listen. This is not about politics anymore. This is about what we can do because it’s really hard for a governor,” Tan admitted.

The Governor’s openness to listen is a powerful political tool, but Fr. Labendia’s concerns are fundamentally legal. The “meeting halfway” cannot mean ignoring the law; it means using the legally required democratic mechanism to negotiate a developmental outcome.